And my question remains how do you believe we as humans got here? How did the smallest minute atom get here? When it comes down to it you have to place your faith into something or confidence in something or someone's theory

first of all, please work on your quoting. There is a link in my sig that should help. It will make your posts easier to understand.

Second, my explanation for ultimately how the universe got here is "I don't know". Luckily for me, that requires no faith. I just have to look around and observe that it is actually here. The rest is where the evidence leads. If the evidence leads somewhere else tomorrow, well, then that is good enough.

And it is one step simpler than your explanation. I have to explain a universe. You have to explain a universe and a guy with magical powers. Good luck.

If you want to say these are different I both agree and disagree with you

Everything that followed this sentence fragment was a complete mystery to me. I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. It almost looks as if you were trying to make the distinction between believing in god and believing that god exists. My old philosophy of religion teacher made that same distinction. He was a great man and very good to me. But he was full of beans on this point. I won't argue it further since that may not be what you are trying to say. I'll wait for clarification.

You may feel it's blind faith but I believe the evidence points to a creator.

Not if you also want to believe that god is impossible to prove. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say god is out of reach and at the same time a natural conclusion of the evidence. These are mutually exclusive states.

And if 100% surety can be given to the thought of there being no God -

There is no 100% surety of anything. Mermaids. Vampires. Zeus. Leprechauns. You name it. There is no 100% surety. Yet you understand all that stuff is false. Why do you have a different standard for yhwh?

DT, You seem to have a very warped view of what science is, how scientific investigation works, and what good critical thinking requires (no offense). What kind of science courses have you taken? You do know that even if all the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary common descent were proven wrong that this would not prove your God, right? At best, you would have to admit that you don't know, right? A lack of knowledge is not evidence for a God or the supernatural.

Placing Yahweh/God as the explanation for any place you don't understand is called an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Even if we agreed with your definition of what "faith" is, why would you put your trust in a non-answer? Why wouldn't you admit that you don't know, and go do more homework? Just because you think something is impossible (i.e. - life from non-life, etc) doesn't mean you are correct.

Certainly late to the party on this one (being that this is my first post here since last summer) but my input: If God could come down here and do something that clearly can't be fabricated (let's say, turning the great pyramids of Giza upside down) then I'd be interested. Also, can I have an autograph from Jesus? If people are willing to fork over a million dollars for one painting, then I think an autographed photo from Jesus would bring in quite a bit.

Logged

I'm here every now and again.We're gonna rock down to Alexis Avenue, he makes the score go higher!

first of all, please work on your quoting. There is a link in my sig that should help. It will make your posts easier to understand. Quoting Tutorial

DT, you have now been asked at least three times to take more care with your posts when you are quoting, and have been given links to the tutorials to teach you how to do it.

You have now had sufficient time to learn how to do it. I would hate to have to think that any errors you made in future were therefore deliberate, and be placed in the position where I would have to delete those posts.

Gotcha, I was saying the heavens, earth etc points to a creator, and for me that's God and his son Jesus. Though I have not ventured into the beliefs of all religion my belief is that there is a one true God.Educate me with what you believe what happens to you when you die?

The heavens/earth do not "point" to a creator. The heavens/earth point to the heavens/earth. You have ASSUMED they point to a creator b/c you assumed the bible from the outset. That is backwards. You should have started by asking questions and investigating. And even if you investigated and found no answer, the honest response should have been "I don't know", not "God did it". Do you see how absurd your position is? It is no different than any other religion. They all claim their position in advance (starting with a conclusion and working backwards) and then trying to defend their assumption. That is called credulity.

can I explain all OT happens to someone that wants evidence, nope but you said something about faith " Try, I mean. [/nb] I could have tried to maintain faith in the Force (as you do in god)" and as a Christian I have faith. and we know faith is created to individuals as righteousness, I wish I had the answer, but until then I have no choice but to continue to ask, seek, knock, continue to grow, continue to read and continue to pray.

WRONG. You DO have a choice (regarding your actions) and you are choosing to just have faith (instead of doing your homework and getting more information) - but faith is not a pathway to truth and it is unreliable for determining what is true from what is false. So you are deliberating choosing to be intellectually lazy, choosing to stick to your interpretation of an old book based upon a presupposition, and choosing to be gullible.

p.s. - Please learn how to use the QUOTE function! Also, please only quote what you are responding to, not an entire post.

As far as the flood, you have to ask where did all the water come from it wasn't just rain. I believe the grand canyon was shaped by the flood, why we have mountain ranges (fountains of the deep breaking open) why certain sea fossils are found in mountains, petrified trees buried in the up right position and the extension of dinosaurs. There is some things on the internet

WRONG. Belief is not a choice. If you think it is, start believing in gods again(?), by choice. I'm prepared to give you as much time as you think you'll need.

This is a misinterpretation of what I stated. I was responding to his assertion regarding what he says he has "no choice" about - namely that he has no choice but to keep seeking god, reading the bible, praying etc. I am very well aware that we do not choose what to believe. We must be convinced - and DT has convinced himself that his version of Christianity is true. I am saying that he can choose to challenge that assumption and do some more homework which may not agree with that assertion.

I got it I know that I'm sucking at the quotes, should have done the intro stuff instead before jumping right in, but it is what it is, I'll practice. I can appreciate someone saying not knowing the origins of life, I wish that was taught in school versus spontaneous combustion of particles as an acceptable theory. I think evolution, like the big bang is a theory and my thought, for science, would be to test and reproduce either theory to make it law or say, ok this one we can't explain, and leave it at that. Someone asked about my courses, I took stuff from pathophysiology all the way to bio techniques - intent was to be a lab rat, or drug discovery type stuff.The discussions/debates have been good...got to practice my quotes to get of the hit list of Moderator(s)

I think evolution, like the big bang is a theory and my thought, for science, would be to test and reproduce either theory to make it law or say, ok this one we can't explain, and leave it at that. Someone asked about my courses, I took stuff from pathophysiology all the way to bio techniques - intent was to be a lab rat, or drug discovery type stuff.

So you are a technician, not a scientist. That makes a lot more sense. Because this quote above shows that you know almost nothing about actual science.

FYI, evolution is tested. It makes predictions and they work. What you think are evolution and science are not evolution or science. I am not saying they accurately reflect reality (though they are). I am saying you are wrong when you say "evolution means this..." or "science says this..." You are just flat out wrong. As wrong as if I said "xianity says jesus H was a space alien with tentacles." They are misconceptions. You have a choice to either educate yourself or perpetuate your ignorance. Which will you choose?

I wish, just once, we would get a theist who put half as much time and effort into honestly researching the theory of evolution (or any other aspect of science) as we atheists have put into honestly researching religious beliefs.

For example, I have, with an open and critical mind, read/studied/become familiar with:

1)the bible; 2) the Quran; 3) Mary Baker Eddy; 4) the Gita; 5) book of Mormon; 6) Tao Te Ching; 7) Thich Nat Thanh on Buddhism; 8] Rasta writings; 9) Afro Latin beliefs; 10) Nation of Islam; and 11) Sikhism. I have attended services from most of the above and will investigate any other religious stuff on offer. This is in addition to being raised with a strict Jehovah's Witness background, and living in animist and Catholic communities in different countries.

That is what I have done to try to understand religion. What I have learned is this:

None of them have any more explanatory power than the scientific method. None of them produce positive real life results in any measurable or consistent way. None of them reveal anything about the world that was not generally known by the people of whatever era the religion arose in. None of them has produced any transcendent information or magical powers that science cannot explain or replicate. All produce a lot of noise, distraction and bs to obscure the above facts. And every single one is geographically and historically limited to the region and culture that produced it.

How many theists come here with that kind of a perspective on evolution or any other aspect of science ?

I got it I know that I'm sucking at the quotes, should have done the intro stuff instead before jumping right in, but it is what it is, I'll practice. I can appreciate someone saying not knowing the origins of life, I wish that was taught in school versus spontaneous combustion of particles as an acceptable theory. I think evolution, like the big bang is a theory and my thought, for science, would be to test and reproduce either theory to make it law or say, ok this one we can't explain, and leave it at that.

This just shows that you don't understand anything about evolutionary biology, anthropology, or origin studies. Have you even taken any biological anthropology courses? Have you studied source material on big bang cosmology, at all? You can do so at nearly any Jr. College. Did you know that a theory is the HIGHEST point in science? It the graduation point (not the lowest point). Again, you are listening to your pastor too much and not enough from the science itself (which has lead you to these grievous errors). But even if science had no explanation for life on earth your answer should still be, "I don't know" - not "God did it" b/c that doesn't explain anything.

I wish, just once, we would get a theist who put half as much time and effort into honestly researching the theory of evolution (or any other aspect of science) as we atheists have put into honestly researching religious beliefs.

I have to admit my "research" into evolution is limited to what I learned in school and what I've seen at frequent visits to the American Museum of Natural History (I was a member until I went broke)

Quote

For example, I have, with an open and critical mind, read/studied/become familiar with:

1) yes- front to back, have compared passages in several versions/translations, also attempted to compare in french, german2) not intensely, only a couple quotes3) don't know of her4) I have several passages I use for yoga, and I have read writings of Ghandi5) sorry, yuck6) love it, have a translation on my Nook and a book Living the Wisdom of the Tao by Wayne Dyer (he tends to be quacky but this book is decent) that suggests how to apply it to daily life7) not that author but writings concerning Buddhism8,10, & 11) not yet but I would be interested9) does a black Cuban boyfriend who keeps a coconut by his door, has candles with pictures of saints and has to pour out the first bit of any hard liquor to "give a drink to the dead" count?

Quote

I have attended services from most of the above and will investigate any other religious stuff on offer. This is in addition to being raised with a strict Jehovah's Witness background, and living in animist and Catholic communities in different countries.

I was raised/educated in a Lutheran Church. Part our confirmation education was that we learned about other faiths, attended other types of services. This was Nebraska in the 70's so the furthest from our own we got was a synagogue. I did learn later in life that we were only a few miles away from the birthplace of Malcolm X but I don't know if that was a landmark back then and that's more of a political/social thing than a religious thing although he did belong to the Nation of Islam. I've lived in Germany and travelled in Europe. I've seen beautiful art, architecture and performed beautiful music that was created, built or composed because of someone's belief in a deity. I was stationed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq where their religion is their law and mine is illegal. When the neighborhood Jehovah's Witness Lady knocks, I chat with her; when my power got shut off, she brought me candles and ice.

Quote

How many theists come here with that kind of a perspective on evolution or any other aspect of science ?

I believe in evolution.I believe atheism is very logical.I do not believe the bible is inerrant.I do not believe that just because I cannot prove something does not mean it does not exist.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

I found this website quite intriguing, so i hope i think its nice to join in the fun.

First of all, Let me Introduce myself.

Im a believer, some call us "Christians", not knowing what the term "Christian" imply.

I dont believe Christ is God. Christ NEVER Claimed it. In fact he said he is "a man".

I believe there's only 1 True God, as Christ said.

So as the question goes: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View? ...meaning to change my view of belief in the existence of God......here goes:

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

An Answer I got from a certain Claimant of Atheism that I was able to talk to was: "I cant do that, Im not a God!"I laughed

With that said, here's something to think about;If a person claiming to be an "atheist" doesnt believe in God, does it automatically follows that God doesnt exist?---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.

Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.

---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

Hello OwnLogic - just a quick question about this.

If I locked you in an empty room, and told you to "create a television", would that mean that televisions did not exist if you were unable to produce one?

I found this website quite intriguing, so i hope i think its nice to join in the fun.

First of all, Let me Introduce myself.

Im a believer, some call us "Christians", not knowing what the term "Christian" imply.

I dont believe Christ is God. Christ NEVER Claimed it. In fact he said he is "a man".

I believe there's only 1 True God, as Christ said.

So as the question goes: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View? ...meaning to change my view of belief in the existence of God......here goes:

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

An Answer I got from a certain Claimant of Atheism that I was able to talk to was: "I cant do that, Im not a God!"I laughed

With that said, here's something to think about;If a person claiming to be an "atheist" doesnt believe in God, does it automatically follows that God doesnt exist?---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.

Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.

Welcome!

Hate to do it on your first post but you got literally everything backwards.Atheists (only capitalized because at the beginning of a sentence) dont have anything to prove as we dont have the positive claim. I guess however, the question being what it would take to make you change your mind makes your answer valid, but you may as well have said "nothing can change my mind" because that is what your answer effectively said.

Your answer starts off wrong because you use the word create, which assumes your stance already. If everything in the universe already existed then the word create means nothing. We have no reason to think the stuff in the universe hasnt always existed because you cant provide an example of nothing. Nothing doesnt exist. Fact is science has an explanation that works for the cosmos starting directly after the big bang. Just because you are willing to disregard the evidence doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

When people say they dont see evidence for a god, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for your god since you are positing the positive claim. As foryour flat earth line, the bible suggests the earth was a circle, scientifically and demonstrably incorrect.

I found this website quite intriguing, so i hope i think its nice to join in the fun.

First of all, Let me Introduce myself.

Im a believer, some call us "Christians", not knowing what the term "Christian" imply.

I dont believe Christ is God. Christ NEVER Claimed it. In fact he said he is "a man".

I believe there's only 1 True God, as Christ said.

So as the question goes: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View? ...meaning to change my view of belief in the existence of God......here goes:

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

An Answer I got from a certain Claimant of Atheism that I was able to talk to was: "I cant do that, Im not a God!"I laughed

With that said, here's something to think about;If a person claiming to be an "atheist" doesnt believe in God, does it automatically follows that God doesnt exist?---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.

Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.

Welcome!

Hate to do it on your first post but you got literally everything backwards.Atheists (only capitalized because at the beginning of a sentence) dont have anything to prove as we dont have the positive claim. I guess however, the question being what it would take to make you change your mind makes your answer valid, but you may as well have said "nothing can change my mind" because that is what your answer effectively said.

Your answer starts off wrong because you use the word create, which assumes your stance already. If everything in the universe already existed then the word create means nothing. We have no reason to think the stuff in the universe hasnt always existed because you cant provide an example of nothing. Nothing doesnt exist. Fact is science has an explanation that works for the cosmos starting directly after the big bang. Just because you are willing to disregard the evidence doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

When people say they dont see evidence for a god, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for your god since you are positing the positive claim. As foryour flat earth line, the bible suggests the earth was a circle, scientifically and demonstrably incorrect.

I am sorry although I agree with you that the religious have a burden for explaining gods existence because they are making an incredible claim, I believe an atheist is making an equally incredible claim. Both require proof.

Agnostics are the only ones who are not making a Gnostic claim.

The atheist says there is no god (with no proof)the theist says there is a god (with no proof)

The atheist claims that the universe came from nothing or rather has always existed in some form (incredible)

The theist says that god has alway been and created the universe (incredible)

I claim, I simply do not know I am the only one who does not have a burden of proof.

---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

Hello OwnLogic - just a quick question about this.

If I locked you in an empty room, and told you to "create a television", would that mean that televisions did not exist if you were unable to produce one?

My analogy speaks of an idea of the existence of a so-called "atheist" based on the principle that he can prove scientifically that there is no God needed to create all things by duplicating creating things in a scientific way.

Meaning if one wants to claim he doesnt believe in a Creator then prove that the Universe can be scientifically manifested.

With all due respect Anfauglir, but i think you have a Wrong Analogy.

Your analogy speaks of a television's existence based on my creating it.

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

Hate to do it on your first post but you got literally everything backwards.Atheists (only capitalized because at the beginning of a sentence) dont have anything to prove as we dont have the positive claim. I guess however, the question being what it would take to make you change your mind makes your answer valid, but you may as well have said "nothing can change my mind" because that is what your answer effectively said.

Your answer starts off wrong because you use the word create, which assumes your stance already. If everything in the universe already existed then the word create means nothing. We have no reason to think the stuff in the universe hasnt always existed because you cant provide an example of nothing. Nothing doesnt exist. Fact is science has an explanation that works for the cosmos starting directly after the big bang. Just because you are willing to disregard the evidence doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

When people say they dont see evidence for a god, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for your god since you are positing the positive claim. As foryour flat earth line, the bible suggests the earth was a circle, scientifically and demonstrably incorrect.

Pardon me for using the word "Create", its not out of any stance "Creationist or otherwise".Create means to produce something out of nothing. It is so different from "Make".Make means to produce something out of something.

Ive also reviewed that Bigbang Theory, sorry to remind you but order is not a byproduct of chaos.

I wont dare say "Nothing can change my Mind" coz What If someone can?

Theres a few things that dont go away, one is change, two is possibilities, among other things.

My analogy speaks of an idea of the existence of a so-called "atheist" based on the principle that he can prove scientifically that there is no God needed to create all things by duplicating creating things in a scientific way.

Saying that one lacks belief in a supernatural "creator" of some kind does not speak to anything else. It is not an insistence that the universe could have been created scientifically (whatever that means). Indeed, it isn't even an admission that the universe had to have been created at all; quite the contrary, lack of belief in deities is most often associated with lack of belief that the universe was created.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

For there to be such a thing as an atheist, there need only be a person who rejects the belief that there are gods. That person need not be right about it. Otherwise you are saying that in order to be a xian you must prove the god of the bible actually exists.

Pardon me for using the word "Create", its not out of any stance "Creationist or otherwise".Create means to produce something out of nothing.

Can you prove there was once "nothing"? Perhaps something has always existed, and merely transformed into our universe at the big bang.

BTW, atheists don't have any burden of proof upon their stance. We simply don't yet find any compelling evidence for gods, yours or otherwise. We don't have to have all the answers to how the universe formed, or the causal events that brought it about to reject claims of creation, because no evidence has been put forth that it is a creation. And, frankly, science has discovered so many wonderous things, previously attributed to gods, that turned out to have natural physical explanations, I can't hold out much hope that gods are necearry for the remaining mysteries of the universe.

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

Fascinating!

I believe that Atum created humanity from his tears. I take it that you can prove that that did not happen? If not, I presume you will have no problem stating for the record that "it is possible that Atum exists, and his tears created humanity"?

I am sorry although I agree with you that the religious have a burden for explaining gods existence because they are making an incredible claim, I believe an atheist is making an equally incredible claim. Both require proof.

As I'm sure others will ask:What would constitute proof of the non-existent?

Quote

Agnostics are the only ones who are not making a Gnostic claim.

Agnostic atheists would also not be making a gnostic claim.

Quote

The atheist claims that the universe came from nothing or rather has always existed in some form (incredible)

The theist says that god has alway been and created the universe (incredible)

I claim, I simply do not know I am the only one who does not have a burden of proof.

Do you take a similar stance with unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, interplanetary tea pots, the Emperor of Mexico, Galactus, Vishnu, three-headed dragons, aliens on the moon, jackalopes, Power Rangers, Jedi Knights, Snorks, faith healers, the lost city of Atlantis, the fountain of youth, Nemesis, etc.?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

OwnLogic, welcome to WWGHA Forum. Please make sure to learn how to use the quote function when replying to others. You just need to copy/paste the "quote author" section, with the brackets, for each person you are responding to. You can then enclose their text by placing the "/quote" (with brackets) function at the end of each quotation. After that, just type your response.

Now, onto your response to my OP. Do you understand what "burden of proof" is? The argument you raised above is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Atheism is simply a LACK OF BELIEF if god or gods - nothing more. It is not a positive statement. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim (like those who said lightening came from Zeus before we knew better).

The default position is not belief, but disbelief until sufficient evidence has been presented. Well, we have been presented with no sufficient evidence for God. As an example, do you believe in Unicorns? If not, why not? Chances are, you have not been presented with sufficient evidence. Here's another example - this is a paraphrased story from another one of our members here (and I think it fits quite nicely here).

Say you and two friends (Bob and Jim) are walking down a foreign alleyway when you come upon a big closed cardboard box, one which none of you have ever seen before. You ask each of your friends what they think is inside the box. Bob says, "I don't know" but Jim says, "There is a Unicorn in there!" When you ask Jim how he thinks he knows this he says, "I just have faith." Which one of your friend's responses is the more reasonable position?

Disbelieving a claim until sound evidence is presented is the default position for fact finding b/c it is the most reliable. So too, with your God example. The burden of proof lies with you making the claim (like Jim needs to show how he knows a Unicorn is in the box).

Does this make sense why your response is nonsensical? We don't believe every claim FIRST and then try to support our belief. That is quite backwards. Instead, we disbelieve until the evidence allows for tentative acceptance.

---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.

Actually, you are quite mistaken here. The people who wrote the bible quite clearly believed that the earth was a flat circular disk shaped living space, with "the heavens" spread out over it like a tent (Isaiah 40, etc). In fact the Hebrew word Chug means circle and never implies a sphere. In fact, the terms "circle of the earth" and "the ends of the earth" were already in use by flat-earth believing Mesopotamians long before Isaiah was written. The verses in Isaiah 42 and 44 indicate a "pounding out" (toward flatness) of the earth by God at the alleged creation. This is b/c the ancients were living in a pre-scientific era and did not know about cosmology. This is why the writers of Isaiah (40, and Job 38, etc) talk about "from one end of the earth even to the other end..." (found also in Mesopotamian writings) or "take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it". See Job 11 also, "[God's] measure is longer than the earth..." and Job 38, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth. On what were it's bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone?"

If you compare these writings with other ancient writings of the time, it is quite clear that the Jews believed the earth is flat.

Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.

Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.

Questions are what drives science. In fact, it's the honest answer "I don't know" that drives science to go investigate, research, study, and find things out (without assuming an answer in advance of the evidence). Science follows the evidence instead of leading it (as religious belief so often does).

Last, people thought the earth was flat, just as they thought lightening came from the god Zeus and storms came from the god Poseidon. They were wrong because they practiced being gullible and didn't have enough information. Could this be the same for God belief? Many of us think so. I look forward to your response.

My analogy speaks of an idea of the existence of a so-called "atheist" based on the principle that he can prove scientifically that there is no God needed to create all things by duplicating creating things in a scientific way.

Meaning if one wants to claim he doesnt believe in a Creator then prove that the Universe can be scientifically manifested.

With all due respect Anfauglir, but i think you have a Wrong Analogy.

Your analogy speaks of a television's existence based on my creating it.

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

But this is another fallacy of burden shifting. Do you just believe everything you hear until someone proves you wrong? If you actually practiced this in your life you would likely be ripped off quite easily. Anyone could swindle you out of your money with this method b/c it is gullible. Do you see the flaw in trying to use this method? It is backwards, and also hypocritical because we don't live our lives this way at all (believing before sufficient evidence comes in). I would certainly hope you do not do this in daily life, do you? The time to believe a claim is after sufficient evidence has been presented (just like with Jim and his claim about the Unicorn) not before. Do you see?

I am sorry although I agree with you that the religious have a burden for explaining gods existence because they are making an incredible claim, I believe an atheist is making an equally incredible claim. Both require proof.

As I'm sure others will ask:What would constitute proof of the non-existent?

Quote

Agnostics are the only ones who are not making a Gnostic claim.

Agnostic atheists would also not be making a gnostic claim.

Quote

The atheist claims that the universe came from nothing or rather has always existed in some form (incredible)

The theist says that god has alway been and created the universe (incredible)

I claim, I simply do not know I am the only one who does not have a burden of proof.

Do you take a similar stance with unicorns, leprechauns, Santa Claus, interplanetary tea pots, the Emperor of Mexico, Galactus, Vishnu, three-headed dragons, aliens on the moon, jackalopes, Power Rangers, Jedi Knights, Snorks, faith healers, the lost city of Atlantis, the fountain of youth, Nemesis, etc.?

Well santa, I know his history and I can say that it is pretty universally documented what his status is.

Unicorns was there ever a horse with a horn. I don't know I could leave myself open to that one.

Vishnu is a religious claim like god I can not deny him but I am pretty convinced that his description is unreliable even if vishnu exists

Atlantis, did a land with an advanced culture by the standards of the time exist and sink? Possibly.

But seriously, an gnostic athiest does not make a claim that he does not know if god exists. he makes the claim that god does not exist. i think that requires proof. I leave the option open for a god but don't believe it likely. but to date I have not found any thing compelling about the universe spawning from a singularity with no source. I think all evidence points to a big bang but what the source of that big bang is as close to magic as one can get. At this point it defies the laws of physics. Energy can not be created or destroyed by natural means. So that energy has always existed??? well always existing with no source still blows my mind.

Of course a god that can creat a universe is just as much of a tall tale as well. The genesis of the universe is where I hold some possible belief that there might be a creator. If science comes up with a plausible explanation I might change my tune.